So in light of recent um… issues… I think it’s high time I give my rating system a little tweak. I’d modeled it after the NY Times’ 4-star system for dining reviews, only instead of stars, I had the letters ZOMG. But as Emily pointed out, it would be better if I didn’t group bad and mediocre together. That’s a pretty wide range to encompass.
And so here’s my new system, better modeled after the NY Times’ system, as they do give zero star reviews.
— (no letters): short for nothing. For candy that merits no praise, ranging from simply bleh to awful; run away!
O: short for Oh. Not bad and worth trying once, but not something that I’d seek out again.
OM: short for Oh My. Good enough to elicit a minor exclaimation. A treat that is worth revisiting.
OMG: short for Oh My God/Goodness. Good enough to invoke a deity/virtuousness. Candy that is worth revisiting, many times over.
ZOMG!: short for Z-Oh My God! As explained on urbandictionary.com, ZOMG is the more enthusiastic form of OMG that arises when one is so excited that one accidentally hits the Z key along with the Shift key. Reserved for the best of the best, candy that is good enough to eat every day but too good to ruin the specialness of by actually eating every day.
So that’s the new system, which I think is a little more fair to the middle-of-the-pack guys. It goes into effect immediately for all future reviews, and I’m hoping to go through my archives – all 477 previous posts – and change Os to —s by the end of June.
Varsha 
sophia cook 
Vishal